Here's an excerpt from the press release:

SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) has released a new guide and supporting Web resource exploring campus-based open-access publishing funds. Authored by SPARC Consultant Greg Tananbaum, these timely new resources survey the current North American landscape of open-access funds and explore key emerging questions on how such funds are considered and developed on college and university campuses.

Open-access funds are resources created to address article-processing fees (APCs) that may be associated with publishing in an open-access journal. These fees are a source of revenue for many open-access publishers (including the Public Library of Science, Hindawi, and the Optical Society of America), as well as for subscription-based publishers experimenting with "open choice" or "hybrid" options, where individual articles are made freely available with the upon payment of an APC.

The new guide, "Open-access publishing funds: A practical guide to design and implementation," and Web resource contain a wealth of background information to inform libraries, authors, administrators and interested others on the practical considerations surrounding open-access funds. The site features up-to-date information on:

• Active open-access funds (at the University of California at Berkeley, University of Calgary, and several other institutions);
• FAQ for authors, administrators, and publishers;
• Considerations in evaluating the launch of a fund;
• Key policy decisions;
• Implementation tools;
• Resource allocation;
• Fund promotion and reporting and more.

To ensure that this resource stays current, readers are invited to contribute their experiences through the online commenting and discussion features that are available.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

In December 2006, the National Humanities Alliance (NHA) charged a Task Force with developing projects to assist NHA members in exploring issues related to scholarly journal publishing in humanities and social science (HSS) associations.

The Task Force needed current business data on HSS journal publishing, and it approached several larger humanities and social science societies to participate in a pilot study that would produce comparable data on HSS journal publishing and financing. The study set out to enable society publishers to better understand their business models over time, to make relevant comparisons with models employed in other disciplines, and to assess potential changes in their models that would help them deliver journal content to the widest possible audience on an economically sustainable basis. The participating societies are: the American Academy of Religion, American Anthropological Association, American Economic Association, American Historical Association, American Political Science Association, American Sociological Association, American Statistical Association, and the Modern Language Association.

With generous support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation through a grant to the American Anthropological Association, the eight scholarly societies engaged the professional guidance of Mary Waltham, an independent consultant with recognized expertise in the publishing field who had conducted a similar study of scientific, technical and medical (STM) journals for the UK's Joint Information Systems Committee. Waltham developed the data collection templates, and gathered detailed cost and revenue information on the flagship journals of the participating HSS societies for a three-year period, 2005- 2007.

Such self-archiving can occur for both preprints and postprints. The author cannot "update the submission version [version submitted for consideration that has not undergone peer review] or replace it with the published Contribution." However, the author can "update the preprint [accepted version that has undergone peer review] with any corrections."

JASIST is the research journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, which "counts among its membership some 4,000 information specialists from such fields as computer science, linguistics, management, librarianship, engineering, law, medicine, chemistry, and education; individuals who share a common interest in improving the ways society stores, retrieves, analyzes, manages, archives and disseminates information, coming together for mutual benefit."

I've identified the URL's (listed below in the same order as in the original document), provided updates where appropriate, and included the publisher's fee-based open access option if available.

• American Academy of Neurology
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Association of Immunologists
• American Chemical Society (The ACS now has an NIH Policy Addendum; there is an ACS AuthorChoice option.)
• American Diabetes Association
• American Medical Association (The AMA still does not appear to have an NIH policy; JAMA Authorship Responsibility, Financial Disclosure, Copyright Transfer, and Acknowledgment)
• American Physiological Society (The APS now has an Important Information about the NIH Public Access Policy and Your Manuscript page; there is an APS AuthorChoice option.)
• American Society for Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
• Radiological Society of North America
• Blackwell Publishing (There is an Online Open option.)
• Elsevier (Elsevier now has an Elsevier NIH Policy Statement; see also the Funding Body FAQ.)
• John Wiley & Sons (Wiley offers a funded access option)
• Nature Publishing Group
• Springer (Springer now has an NIH Compliance/Author Self-Archiving Policy; there is a Springer Open Choice option.)
• Taylor & Francis (This is not an NIH-specific policy; Taylor & Francis permits authors to retain their copyrights; there is an iOpenAccess option for some journals.)

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

"During the course of our search for this pivotal position, it became clear that Anne Kenney's innovative leadership, breadth of knowledge, and national and international reputation make her a superb choice for university librarian," said Cornell Provost Carolyn Martin. "I am pleased that we can continue to benefit from Anne's vision and proven ability to engage the university community as she guides our library system into the future, a future toward which Cornell will continue to lead."

As Cornell university librarian—the chief academic and administrative officer of the university's extensive library system—Kenney will be leading one of the world's largest research libraries, with a total budget of over $50 million, a staff of more than 450 and over 7.5 million volumes. Cornell has 20 constituent libraries located in Ithaca, Geneva (N.Y.), New York City and Doha (Qatar), and it also actively serves scholars around the globe.

"I am honored to be selected as Cornell's 11th university librarian," Kenney said. "Cornell University Library combines international leadership in digital library development with an abiding commitment to traditional scholarly resources. It consistently tops user surveys for the excellence of its services and holdings, ranking as the key campus service by graduating seniors and among the top criteria contributing to faculty work satisfaction. Based on our strengths—first-rate collections, outstanding staff, central campus locations, constituent support—the library is well positioned to address key challenges of the next decade and maintain its preeminent academic place. I can't think of an institution that I would more enjoy leading in this work."

Kenney came to Cornell Library in 1987 and served as associate director for the Department of Preservation and Conservation until 2001. During that time, and from 2002 to 2006 as associate university librarian for instruction, research and information services, she helped spearhead a period of change and growth that has made Cornell Library the envy of its peers for pioneering work in digitization, network access and scholarly publishing. Active in the archival and preservation communities, Kenney is a fellow and past president of the Society of American Archivists. She currently serves on the Social Science Research Council's Committee on Libraries and Archives of Cuba and is a member of Advisory Committee of Portico, a nonprofit digital preservation service. She has served as a commissioner of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (National Archives), the National Science Foundation/European Union Working Group on a Digital Preservation Research Agenda, and was a member of the Clinton/Gore presidential transition team.

Kenney is known internationally for her ground-breaking work in developing standards for digitizing library materials that have been adopted by organizations around the world, including important scholarly archives such as JSTOR. She is the co-author of three award-winning monographs and more than 50 articles and reports. She was the recipient of: Yahoo! en español's award for online "Tutorial de Digitalización de Imágenes" as the best of the year 2002 in the category "Internet y computadoras"; the Society of American Archivists' Best Book Award (Leland Prize) in 1997 and 2000 for books on digital imaging for libraries and archives, and the SAA Preservation Publication Award in 1995 and 2004; and she was the recipient of the 2001 LITA/Library Hi Tech Award for Outstanding Communication in Library and Information Technology from the American Library Association. More recently, her research in organizational aspects of digital preservation has resulted in publication of influential reports of e-journal archiving and a training program that has had an international impact.

She received her bachelor's degree from Duke University in 1972, a master's degree in history from the University of Missouri-St. Louis in 1975 and a master's degree in library services in 1979 from the University of Missouri-Columbia. An avid hiker, Kenney scaled Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania this past February.

Here is an excerpt from that statement (minus footnote numbers):

From the founding of the first American university presses in the late 19th century, the purpose of the university press has always been to assist the university in fulfilling its noble mission "to advance knowledge, and to diffuse it not merely among those who can attend the daily lectures—but far and wide," in the famous words of President Daniel Coit Gilman of the Johns Hopkins University. Universities acknowledged then that for most scholarly works there was insufficient commercial demand to sustain a publishing operation on sales alone, and recognized an obligation to establish and subsidize their own presses in order to serve the mission of universities to share the knowledge they generate.

Knowledge is expensive to produce, and requires—in addition to the scholar’s own work—knowledgeable editorial selection and careful vetting as well as a high level of quality in copyediting, design, production, marketing, and distribution in order to achieve the excellence for which American universities have come to be widely praised. Universities have made substantial investments in their presses, and the staffs who run them are expert at what they do. The system of scholarly communication that these presses support has played a vital role in the spread of knowledge worldwide. Calls for changing this system need to take careful account of the costs of doing so, not just for individual presses but for their parent universities, and for the scholarly societies that also contribute in major ways to the current system.

And, indeed, while proud of their achievements, university presses and scholarly societies have never been averse to change. Rather, being embedded in the culture of higher education that values experimentation and advances in knowledge, presses have themselves been open to new ways of facilitating scholarly communication and have been active participants in the process. Prominent examples from the last decade include Project MUSE, the History E-Book Project, the History Cooperative, California’s AnthroSource and eScholarship Editions, Cambridge Companions Online, Chicago’s online edition of The Founders’ Constitution, Columbia’s International Affairs Online (CIAO) and Gutenberg-e, The New Georgia Encyclopedia, MIT CogNet, Oxford Scholarship Online and Oxford’s recent experiments with open access journals, Virginia’s Rotunda, and Michigan’s new press and library collaboration digitalculturebooks.

The phrase "open access" has come to symbolize the pressure for change in the system, largely in response to the financial burden on academic libraries of maintaining subscriptions to commercially published journals in science, technology, and medicine (STM). Without reform to this system many fear that the results of new research will increasingly be accessible to an ever-shrinking number of the wealthiest universities. Hence the call has arisen for a new publishing model of open access that will ensure the continued ability of universities to disseminate knowledge "far and wide."

The well-known Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), in promoting a solution to the high price of STM journals, defines open access as "permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the Internet itself." In principle, this definition of open access could be applied to all types of scholarly publishing, and calls for widespread use of institutional repositories and for self-archiving by individual scholars in order to promote such open access are by no means limited to just STM journal literature. Although the debate over open access has centered almost exclusively on one sector of publishing, STM journals, there is no reason to limit the discussion to that sector and indeed, given the interconnectedness of knowledge, it is unwise not to explore the implications of open access for all fields of knowledge lest an unfortunate new "digital divide" should arise between fields and between different types of publishing. The recently proposed legislation known as the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 (FRPAA) would affect a wide range of research that receives funding from 11 federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Departments of Energy, Education, and Defense. The American Council of Learned Societies, in its 2006 report on "Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences," has advocated such open access for all social science and humanities scholarship. However, there is a wide range of models that can be subsumed under the generic term "open access," with both risks and benefits to the entire system of scholarly communications that are as yet not fully understood.

The member presses of AAUP, which include scholarly societies, recognize that they have an obligation to confront the many challenges—economic, legal, and technological—to the existing system and to participate with all willing partners, both within and outside the university, to strengthen and expand scholarly communications. Many of them, often in collaboration with research libraries, are already experimenting with new approaches, including varieties of open access that seek to balance the mission of scholarly communication with its costs.

Those costs today are covered by a combination of institutional subsidies and sales in the marketplace. On average, AAUP university-based members receive about 10% of their revenue as subsidies from their parent institution, 85% from sales, and 5% from other sources. Therefore the AAUP believes it is important to keep an open mind about what constitutes open access, since some kinds of open access are compatible with a market-based model. The National Academies Press, for instance, makes all of its books available online for free full-text browsing worldwide while offering both downloadable PDFs and print copies for sale.

For the more radical approaches that abandon the market as a viable basis for the recovery of costs in scholarly publishing and instead try to implement a model that has come to be known as the "gift economy" or the "subsidy economy," the AAUP urges that the following points be kept in mind:

1) BOAI-type open access will require large contributions from either the authors or other sources (including foundations and libraries, which pay "member" fees instead of paying for subscriptions). Scholars at less wealthy institutions or those with no institutional affiliations may experience greater difficulty in publishing unless fees are waived or reduced (a process that will increase the burden on other authors, who will have to pay higher fees to offset the waivers). This will be especially true for monographs, the publishing cost for which now runs around $25,000 to $30,000 (for an average monograph of 250 pages with no illustrations) and would still be close to $20,000 to $25,000 if no printing were done or inventory maintained by the publisher. While inequities among users may be resolved by open-access publishing, they may resurface as inequities among authors.

2) Costs for scholarly communication overall will not change radically, but merely be shifted from one sector of the university to another. For university presses and scholarly societies currently, only 17% to 20% of the publishing costs of monographs are spent on manufacturing, so most of their other expenses will still need to be covered Even so, many end users will prefer to print out what they want to read, especially longer articles and books, using printing devices that are less economical than dedicated printing presses. Moreover, since traditional print publishing will not disappear overnight, there will be the continuing costs of maintaining that part of the system in addition to the new costs of supporting online publishing ventures. Finally, if faculty are asked themselves to become publishers, they will spend more of their time performing tasks for which they are not trained and less on the teaching and research for which they are, resulting in an overall loss in economic efficiency for the university as a whole.

3) Requirements for fully free-to-user open access publishing of journal articles, whether through the journals themselves or by way of open institutional repositories or authors’ self-archiving, will undermine existing well-regarded services like Project MUSE (the electronic database of more than 300 journals in the humanities and social sciences jointly operated by the library and press at Johns Hopkins) that rely on institutional site licensing to be sustained. BOAI-style open access is inherently incompatible with site licensing as a model for journal publishing and archiving.

4) In 2005, university presses recovered 90% of their operating costs, roughly $500 million, from sales. Of that $500 million, sales to libraries account for 15% to 20%, or $75 to $100 million. The rest comes from sales to general and college bookstores, to online retailers, and directly to individual scholars. Under free-to-user open access, universities that operate presses would need to be prepared to decide how much of the cost of maintaining the system they would want to continue bearing and how much they would expect other universities to absorb by providing full or partial faculty subsidies for publication of both journal articles and monographs. Any university opting for full support could expect its costs to rise dramatically. Conversely, if any parent university decided to maintain only its current support, other universities not now supporting the system, or doing so only through small and occasional subsidies for faculty publication, would also see their costs increase. Offsetting these costs would be whatever amounts their libraries would save in journal subscriptions and monograph purchases, but since commercial publishers (and many society publishers) would not have the option of converting to a full "subsidy economy," those amounts would be equivalent to only what libraries currently spend on university press publications.

5) If commercial publishers should decide to stop publishing research under the constrained circumstances envisioned by advocates of free-to-user open access, what happens to the journals abandoned by these publishers? How many of them could universities afford to subsidize through faculty grants? How much could universities with presses increase the output of their presses to accommodate the monographs now published commercially? The answers to these questions could involve significant new capital investments. In addition, the case of scholarly societies under BOAI-style open access is particularly worrying. As non-profit organizations committed to supporting effective scholarly communications and professional standards in their fields, these societies provide a wide range of services to scholars and scholarship, including annual conferences, professional development opportunities, recognition of scholarly excellence, and statistical information on such matters as enrollment and employment in their fields, as well as respected publishing programs. Whether a given society’s publishing activities underwrite other services or must be supported by other revenues, funding for essential professional and scholarly activities would be jeopardized by a mandated shift to free-to-user open access, increasing the financial burdens on individual scholars as both authors and professionals.

For university presses, unlike commercial and society publishers, open access does not necessarily pose a threat to their operation and their pursuit of the mission to "advance knowledge, and to diffuse it. . . far and wide." Presses can exist in a gift economy for at least the most scholarly of their publishing functions if costs are internally reallocated (from library purchases to faculty grants and press subsidies). But presses have increasingly been required by their parent universities to operate in the market economy, and the concern that presses have for the erosion of copyright protection directly reflects this pressure. Any decision to switch from a market to a gift economy requires very careful thought and planning. The AAUP and its member presses welcome the opportunity to collaborate with university administrators, librarians, and faculty in designing new publishing models, mindful that it is important to protect what is most valuable about the existing system, which has served the scholarly community and the general public so well for over a century, while undertaking reforms to make the system work better for everyone in the future.

An excerpt from the press release follows:

"The long tradition of methodical scientific inquiry and information sharing through publication in scholarly journals has helped advance medicine to where it is today," said Martin Frank of the American Physiological Society and coordinator of the coalition. "We as independent publishers must determine when it is appropriate to make content freely available, and we believe strongly it should not be determined by government mandate."

The Coalition also reaffirmed its ongoing practice of making millions of scientific journal articles available free of charge, without an additional financial burden on the scientific community or on funding agencies. More than 1.6 million free articles are already available to the public free of charge on HighWire Press.

"The scholarly publishing system is a delicate balance between the need to sustain journals financially and the goal of disseminating scientific knowledge as widely as possible. Publishers have voluntarily made more journal articles available free worldwide than at any time in history — without government intervention," noted Kathleen Case of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The Coalition expressed concern that a mandatory timetable for free access to all federally funded research could harm journals, scientists, and ultimately the public. Subscriptions to journals with a high percentage of federally funded research would decline rapidly. Subscription revenues support the quality control system known as peer review and also support the educational work of scientific societies that publish journals.

Undermining subscriptions would shift the cost of publication from the publisher who receives subscription revenue to the researcher who receives grants. Such a shift could:

Divert scarce dollars from research. Publishers now pay the cost of publication out of subscription revenue; if the authors have to pay, the funds will come from their research grants. Nonprofit journals without subscription revenue would have to rely on the authors’ grant funds to cover publication costs, which would divert funding from research.

Result in only well-funded scientists being able to publish their work. The ability to publish in scientific journals should be available equally to all.

Reduce the ability of journals to fund peer review. Most journals spend 40% or more of their revenue on quality control through the peer review system; without subscription income and with limitations on author fees, peer review would suffer.

Harm those scientific societies that rely on income from journals to fund the professional development of scientists. Revenues from scholarly publications fund research, fellowships to junior scientists, continuing education, and mentoring programs to increase the number of women and under-represented groups in science, among many other activities.

Prominent open access advocates Stevan Harnad and Peter Suber have both critiqued the statement in detail.

This bibliography presents selected English-language articles, conference papers, and other printed and electronic sources that are useful in understanding electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs). It emphasizes formally published works. Where possible, links are provided to sources that are freely available on the Internet.

Allard, Suzie. "7th International Symposium on Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD 2004): Distributing Knowledge Worldwide through Better Scholarly Communication, 3-5 June 2004, Lexington, Kentucky, USA." D-Lib Magazine 10, no. 9 (2004).
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september04/allard/09allard.html

Andrew, Theo. Intellectual Property and Electronic Theses. London: JISC, 2004.
http://www.thesesalive.ac.uk/archive/IP_etheses.pdf

———. "Theses Alive!: An E-Theses Management System for the UK." (2004).
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/423?mode=simple

Bakelli, Yahia, and Sabrina Benrahmoun. "Long-Term Preservation of Electronic Theses and Dissertations in Algeria." Libri 53, no. 4 (2003): 254-261.

Balile, Deodatus. "Africa to Get Online Research Database." SciDev.Net, 23 October 2003.
http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=1068&language=1

Bevan, Simon J. "Electronic Thesis Development at Cranfield University." Program: Electronic Library & Information Systems 39, no. 2 (2005): 100-111.

Chang, Sheau-Hwang. "Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD)." OCLC Systems & Services 18, no. 3 (2002): 109-111.

Copeland, Susan, and Andrew Penman. "The Development and Promotion of Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) within the UK." New Review of Information Networking 10, no. 1 (2004): 19-32.

Cox, Fannie M, and Mary Barbosa-Jerez. "Gleanings from the 7th International Symposium on Electronic Thesis and Dissertations." Library Hi Tech News 21, no. 8 (2004): 10-12.

Douglas, Kimberly. "Report on the Fourth Annual Symposium on Electronic Theses and Dissertations." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 28, no. 1 (2001): 27-28.
http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Oct-01/douglas.html

Edminster, Jude, and Joe Moxley. "Graduate Education and the Evolving Genre of Electronic Theses and Dissertations." Computers and Composition 19, no. 1 (2002): 89-104.

El-Bayoumi, Janice, and Lisa Charlong. "The University of New Brunswick’s Pilot for an Electronic Theses and Dissertation Program." In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services, 240-246. New York: ACM Press, 2003.

El-Sherbini, Magda, and George Klim. "Metadata and Cataloging Practices." The Electronic Library 22, no. 3 (2004): 238-248.

Fineman, Yale. "Electronic Theses and Dissertations." portal: Libraries and the Academy 3, no. 2 (2003): 219-227.

———. "Electronic Theses and Dissertations in Music." Notes 60, no. 4 (2004): 893-907.

Fox, Edward A., John L. Eaton, Gail McMillan, Neill A. Kipp, Paul Mather, Tim McGonigle, William Schweiker, and Brian DeVane. "Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations: An International Effort Unlocking University Resources." D-Lib Magazine (September 1997).
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september97/theses/09fox.html

Fox, Edward A., John L. Eaton, Gail McMillan, Neill A. Kipp, Laura Weiss, Emilio Arce, and Scott Guyer. "National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations: A Scalable and Sustainable Approach to Unlock University Resources." D-Lib Magazine (September 1996).
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september96/theses/09fox.html

Fox, Edward A., Shahrooz Feizabadi, Joseph M. Moxley, and Christian R. Weisser, eds. Electronic Theses and Dissertations: A Sourcebook for Educators, Students, and Librarians. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2004.

Fox, Edward A., Robert Hall, and Neill Kipp. "NDLTD: Preparing the Next Generation of Scholars for the Information Age." The New Review of Information Networking 3 (1997): 59-76.

Fox, Edward A., Gail McMillan, Hussein Suleman, Marcos A. Gonçalves, and Ming Luo. "Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD)." In Digital Libraries: Policy, Planning and Practice, edited by Judith Andrews and Derek Law, 167-188. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate, 2004.

Goldsmith, Ursula Irene Anna. "Perceptions of Active Graduate Faculty at a Research Extensive University Regarding Electronic Submission of Theses and Dissertations (ETDs)." Louisiana State University, 2002.

Hagen, John H., Susanne Dobratz, and Peter Schirmbacher. "Electronic Theses and Dissertations Worldwide: Highlights of the ETD 2003 Symposium." D-Lib Magazine 9, no. 7/8 (2002).
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july03/hagen/07hagen.html

Hall, Susan. "Electronic Theses and Dissertations: Enhancing Scholarly Communication and the Graduate Student Experience." Science & Technology Libraries 22, no. 3/4 (2002): 51-58.

Humboldt-University Berlin. ETD 2003, Sixth International Symposium on Electronic Theses and Dissertations, Next Steps—Electronic Thesis and Dissertations Worldwide. Berlin: Humboldt-University Berlin.
http://www.hu-berlin.de/etd2003/

Jones, Richard. "DSpace vs. ETD-db: Choosing Software to Manage Electronic Theses and Dissertations." Ariadne, no. 38 (2004).
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue38/jones/

———. "The Tapir: Adding E-Theses Functionality to DSpace." Ariadne, no. 41 (2004).
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue41/jones/

Kushkowski, Jeffrey D. "Web Citation by Graduate Students: A Comparison of Print and Electronic Theses." portal: Libraries and the Academy 5, no. 2 (2005): 259-276.

Lee, Kyiho. "Construction of a Full-Text Database and Service System for Korean Electronic Theses and Dissertations." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 27, no. 3 (2001): 21-27.
http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Mar-01/lee.html#lee

MacColl, John. "Electronic Theses and Dissertations: A Strategy for the UK." Ariadne, no. 32 (2002).
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue32/theses-dissertations/

McMillan, Gail. "Do ETDs Deter Publishers?" College & Research Libraries News 62, no. 6 (2001): 620-621.

———. "Electronic Theses and Dissertations: Merging Perspectives." Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 22, no. 3-4 (1996): 105-125.

———. "ETD: Electronic Theses and Dissertations." In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, edited by Miriam Drake, 1034-1040. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003.

———. "Managing Electronic Theses and Dissertations: The Third International Symposium." College & Research Libraries News 61, no. 5 (2000): 413-414.

McMillan, Gail, Ed Fox, and John Eaton. "Evolving Genre of Electronic Theses and Dissertations." In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, edited by Ralph H. Sprague. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1999.

Moxley, Joseph M. "Universities Should Require Electronic Theses and Dissertations." EDUCAUSE Quarterly 24, no. 3 (2001): 61-63.
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0139.pdf

Phanouriou, Constantinos, Neill A. Kipp, Ohm Sornil, Paul Mather, and Edward A. Fox. "A Digital Library for Authors: Recent Progress of the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations." In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM conference on Digital Libraries, 20-27. New York: ACM Press, 1999.

Seamans, Nancy H. "Electronic Theses and Dissertations as Prior Publications: What the Editors Say." Library Hi Tech 21, no. 1 (2003): 56-61.

Soete, George J. "Electronic Theses and Dissertations." Transforming Libraries, no. 7 (1998).
http://www.arl.org/transform/etd/

Suleman, Hussein, Anthony Atkins, Marcos A. Gonçalves, Robert K. France, Edward A. Fox, Vinod Chachra, Murray Crowder, and Jeff Young. "Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations: Bridging the Gaps for Global Access—Part 1: Mission and Progress." D-Lib Magazine 7, no. 9 (2001).
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september01/suleman/09suleman-pt1.html

Suleman, Hussein, Anthony Atkins, Marcos A. Goncalves, Robert K. France, Edward A. Fox, Vinod Chachra, Murray Crowder, and Jeff Young. "Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations: Bridging the Gaps for Global Access—Part 2: Services and Research." D-Lib Magazine 7, no. 9 (2001).
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september01/suleman/09suleman-pt2.html

Suleman, Hussein, and Edward A. Fox. "Leveraging OAI Harvesting to Disseminate Theses." Library Hi Tech 21, no. 2 (2003): 219-227.
http://pubs.cs.uct.ac.za/archive/00000018/

———. "Towards Universal Accessibility of ETDs: Building the NDLTD Union Archive."
http://www.husseinsspace.com/publications/etd_2002_paper_union.pdf

Surratt, Brian E., and Dustin Hill. "ETD2MARC: A Semiautomated Workflow for Cataloging Electronic Theses and Dissertations." Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 28, no. 2 (2004): 205-223.

Teper, Thomas H., and Beth Kraemer. "Long-Term Retention of Electronic Theses and Dissertations." College & Research Libraries 63, no. 1 (2002): 61-72.

Thompson, Larry A. "Electronic Theses and Dissertations at Virginia Tech." Science & Technology Libraries 20, no. 1 (2001): 87-101.

Ubogu, Felix N. "Spreading the ETD Gospel: A Southern Africa Perspective." International Information & Library Review 33, no. 2/3 (2001): 249-259.

Urs, Shalini R., and K.S. Raghavan. "Vidyanidhi: Indian Digital Library of Electronic Theses." Communications of the ACM 44, no. 5 (2001): 88-89.

Weisser, Christian, John Baker, and Janice R. Walker. "Problems and Possibilities of Electronic Theses and Dissertations." Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine (November 1997).
http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/nov/etds.html

Weisser, Christian, and Janice R. Walker. "Electronic Theses and Dissertations: Digitizing Scholarship for Its Own Sake." The Journal of Electronic Publishing 3, no. 2 (1997).
http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-02/etd.html

Young, Jeffrey R. "Requiring Theses in Digital Form: The First Year at Virginia Tech." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 February 1998, A29-A31.

Zhang, Yin, and Kyiho Lee. "Features and Uses of a Multilingual Full-Text Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDS) System." In National Online Meeting 2001: Proceedings of the 22nd National Online Meeting, New York, May 15-17, 2001, edited by Martha E. Williams, 555-566. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2001.

Zhang, Yin, Kyiho Lee, and Bum-Jong You. "Usage Patterns of an Electronic Theses and Dissertations System." Online Information Review 25, no. 6 (2001): 370-377.